This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(August 2011)

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. Consider associating this request with a WikiProject.(November 2014)

immigrationis the movement of people into the start of a dark time in the country to which they are not native in order to settle there, especially as permanent residents or future living .[1][2] Immigrants are motivated to leave their native countries for a variety of reasons, including a desire for economic prosperity, political issues, family re-unification, escaping conflict or natural disaster, or simply the wish to change one's surroundings. In 2013 the United Nations estimated that there were 231,522,215 immigrants in the world (apx. 3.25% of the global population).[3]

Contents

The global population of immigrants has grown since 1990 but has remained around 3% of the world's population.

As of 2005[update], the United Nations reported that there were nearly 191 million international immigrants worldwide, about 3 percent of the world population.[4] In 2013 the United Nations estimated that there were 231,522,215 immigrants in the world (apx. 3.25% of the global population).[3] while the number of immigrants increases along with the world's population the proportion of immigrants as part of the world's population remained relatively consistent since 1990. In 2005 60% of immigrants lived in developed countries while the rest lived in developing countries.

A 2012 survey by Gallup found that given the opportunity, 640 million adults would migrate to another country with 23% of these would-be immigrant choosing the United States as their desired future residence, while 7% of respondents, representing 45 million people, would choose the United Kingdom. The other top desired destination countries (those where an estimated 69 million or more adults would like to go) were Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Germany and Spain.[5]

London has become multiethnic as a result of immigration.[7] In London in 2008, Black British and British Asian children outnumbered white British children by about 3 to 2 in government-run schools.[8]

One theory of immigration distinguishes between push and pull factors.[9]

Push factors refer primarily the motive for immigration from the country of origin. In the case of economic migration (usually labor migration), differentials in wage rates are usual. If the value of wages in the new country surpasses the value of wages in one's native country, he or she may choose to migrate as long as the costs are not too high. Particularly in the 19th century, economic expansion of the US increased immigrant flow, and nearly 40% of the population was foreign born[citation needed] (versus today's values of 10%), thus making up a significant amount of the labor force. Poor individuals from less developed countries can have higher standards of living in developed countries than in their originating countries.[citation needed]

As transportation technology improved, travel time and costs decreased dramatically between the 18th and early 20th century. Travel across the Atlantic used to take up to 5 weeks in the 18th century, but around the time of the 20th century it took a mere 8 days.[10] When the opportunity cost is lower, the immigration rates tend to be higher.[10] Escape from poverty (personal or for relatives staying behind) is a traditional push factor, and the availability of jobs is the related pull factor. Natural disasters can amplify poverty-driven migration flows. This kind of migration may be illegal immigration in the destination country.[citation needed]

Managed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), Harmony Day is intended to celebrate the cohesive and inclusive nature of Australia and promote a tolerant and culturally diverse society.

Some migration is for personal reasons, based on a relationship (e.g. to be with family or a partner), such as in family reunification or transnational marriage (especially in the instance of a gender imbalance). Recent research has found gender, age, and cross-cultural differences in the ownership of the idea to immigrate.[11] In a few cases, an individual may wish to immigrate to a new country in a form of transferred patriotism. Evasion of criminal justice (e.g., avoiding arrest) is a personal motivation. This type of emigration and immigration is not normally legal, if a crime is internationally recognized, although criminals may disguise their identities or find other loopholes to evade detection. For example, there have been cases of those who might be guilty of war crimes disguising themselves as victims of war or conflict and then pursuing asylum in a different country.[citation needed]

Barriers to immigration come not only in legal form or political form; natural and social barriers to immigration can also be very powerful. Immigrants when leaving their country also leave everything familiar: their family, friends, support network, and culture. They also need to liquidate their assets, often at a large loss,[citation needed] and they incur the expense of moving. When they arrive in a new country, this is often with many uncertainties including finding work, where to live, new laws, new cultural norms, language or accent issues, possible racism, and other exclusionary behavior towards them and their family. These barriers act to limit international migration (scenarios where populations move en masse to other continents, creating huge population surges, and their associated strain on infrastructure and services, ignore these inherent limits on migration).[citation needed]

The Iron Curtain in Europe was designed as a means of preventing emigration. "It is one of the ironies of post-war European history that, once the freedom to travel for Europeans living under communist regimes, which had long been demanded by the West, was finally granted in 1989/90, travel was very soon afterwards made much more difficult by the West itself, and new barriers were erected to replace the Iron Curtain." —Anita Böcker[12]

Studies have suggested that some special interest groupslobby for less immigration for their own group and more immigration for other groups since they see effects of immigration, such as increased labor competition, as detrimental when affecting their own group but beneficial when impacting other groups. A 2010 European study suggested that "employers are more likely to be pro-immigration than employees, provided that immigrants are thought to compete with employees who are already in the country. Or else, when immigrants are thought to compete with employers rather than employees, employers are more likely to be anti-immigration than employees."[13] A 2011 study examining the voting of US representatives on migration policy suggests that "representatives from more skilled labor abundant districts are more likely to support an open immigration policy towards the unskilled, whereas the opposite is true for representatives from more unskilled labor abundant districts."[14]

Another contributing factor may be lobbying by earlier immigrants. The Chairman for the US Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform—which lobby for more permissive rules for immigrants, as well as special arrangements just for Irish people—has stated that "the Irish Lobby will push for any special arrangement it can get—'as will every other ethnic group in the country.'"[15][16]

The term economic migrant refers to someone who has travelled from one region to another region for the purposes of seeking employment or an improved financial position. An economic migrant is distinct from someone who is a refugee fleeing persecution.

Many countries have immigration and visa restrictions that prohibit a person entering the country for the purposes of gaining work without a valid work visa. As a violation of a State's immigration laws a person who is declared to be an economic migrant can be refused entry into a country.

The process of allowing immigrants into a particular country is believed to have effects on wages and employment. In particular lower skilled workers are thought to be directly affected by economic migrants, but evidence suggests that this is due to adjustments within industries.[17]

The World Bank estimates that remittances totaled $420 billion in 2009, of which $317 billion went to developing countries.[18]

Proponents of immigration maintain that, according to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, along with movement within it (internal migration), although article 13 actually restricts freedom of movement to "within the borders of each state." Additionally, the UDHR does not mention entry into other countries when it states that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."[19] Some argue that the freedom of movement both within and between countries is a basic human right, and that the restrictive immigration policies, typical of nation-states, violate this human right of freedom of movement.[20] Such arguments are common among anti-state ideologies like anarchism and libertarianism.[citation needed] As philosopher and "Open Borders" activist Jacob Appel has written, "Treating human beings differently, simply because they were born on the opposite side of a national boundary, is hard to justify under any mainstream philosophical, religious or ethical theory." However, Article 14 does provide that "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."[21]

Where immigration is permitted, it is typically selective. As of 2003[update], family reunification accounted for approximately two-thirds of legal immigration to the US every year.[22] Ethnic selection, such as the White Australia policy, has generally disappeared, but priority is usually given to the educated, skilled, and wealthy. Less privileged individuals, including the mass of poor people in low-income countries, cannot avail themselves of the legal and protected immigration opportunities offered by wealthy states. This inequality has also been criticized as conflicting with the principle of equal opportunities, which apply (at least in theory) within democratic nation-states. The fact that the door is closed for the unskilled, while at the same time many developed countries have a huge demand for unskilled labor, is a major factor in illegal immigration. The contradictory nature of this policy—which specifically disadvantages the unskilled immigrants while exploiting their labor—has also been criticized on ethical grounds.

Immigration policies which selectively grant freedom of movement to targeted individuals are intended to produce a net economic gain for the host country. They can also mean net loss for a poor donor country through the loss of the educated minority—the brain drain. This can exacerbate the global inequality in standards of living that provided the motivation for the individual to migrate in the first place. One example of competition for skilled labour is active recruitment of health workers from the Third World by First World countries.

The Cato Institute finds little or no effect of immigration on the income of citizens belonging to established populations.[23] The Brookings Institution finds a 2.3% depression of wages from immigration from 1980 to 2007.[24] The Center for Immigration Studies finds a 3.7% depression wages from immigration from 1980 to 2000.[25] Research indicates that immigrants are more likely to work in risky jobs than U.S.-born workers, partly due to differences in average characteristics, such as immigrants' lower English language ability and educational attainment.[26] Further, some studies indicate that higher ethnic concentration in metropolitan areas is positively related to the probability of self-employment of immigrants.[27]

Toronto's unemployment rate was 6.7% in November 2010, including 19.7% among recent immigrants.[28]

Research has found that as immigration and ethnic heterogeneity increase, government funding of welfare and public support for welfare decrease. Ethnic nepotism may be an explanation for this phenomenon. Other possible explanations include theories regarding in-group and out-group effects and reciprocal altruism.[29]

Karakayali, Nedim. 2005. "Duality and Diversity in the Lives of Immigrant Children: Rethinking the 'Problem of Second Generation' in Light of Immigrant Autobiographies", Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 325–344.

Kolb, Eva. The Evolution of New York City's Multiculturalism: Melting Pot or Salad Bowl. Immigrants in New York from the 19th Century until the End of the Gilded Age. BOD, 2009. ISBN 3-8370-9303-4